Mossad mythology


By Miriam Shaviv
February 17, 2010
Share

I love this completely breathless "expose" of the Mossad's operation methods in the Telegraph today. It is a perfect example of how the Mossad's fearsome reputation is bolstered by rumours, innuendo and just plain old meaningless rubbish. Best line:

In the past year, al-Mabhouh had moved to the top of Mossad's list of targets, each of which must be legally approved under guidelines laid down over half a century ago by Meir Amit, the most innovative and ruthless director-general of the service. Born in Tiberius, King Herod's favourite city, Amit had established the rules for assassination.

Wow. King Herod's favourite city! He must be really scary.... and probably loves fish.

COMMENTS

moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 12:55

Rate this:

0 points

What do you expect? It was written by Gordon Thomas, the author of 'Gideon's Spies' -- probably the worst book ever written on the "shu-shu"


Jenni Frazer

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 13:02

Rate this:

0 points

I interviewed Gordon Thomas after his book came out. Among the choicer claims was that Princess Diana's chauffeur, Henri Paul, had been in the process of being recruited by Mossad on the night of the crash; and that it was the Mossad which fingered Jonathan Aitken in order to help The Guardian win its libel case against him. The book was riddled with mistakes and basic errors which even someone who knew nothing about the intelligence services could easily spot. So Thomas is obviously an ideal person to buy into the myth and mystery being peddled about the Mossad, The really worrying thing is that the Telegraph thought this breathless rubbish worth recording.


Yvetta

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 13:16

Rate this:

0 points

Al Beeb has trotted him out on its news broadcasts this morning. The lead story.
The same Al Beeb that never explains to the public exactly how ruthless and racist the Hamas Charter is.


Avraham Reiss

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 13:52

Rate this:

0 points

I so agree with Jenni! I read Thomas's book quite a few years ago, and early on in the book I became aware of many distortions, mistruths and other misleading pieces of fiction (presented as fact) of which I was aware as an average Israeli, with no specific knowledge other that that provided by Press, TV and Radio etc.

So many distortions that I began paper-marking them, and still have the book full of paper-marks somewhere or other.

The book's basic flaw IMHO was Thomas's total infatuation with Meir Amit. And this is no criticism of General Amit, the man who - at Ezer Weitzman's 'request' as head of the Air Force in 1966 - engineered the defection to Israel of the Iraqi Mig 21 pilot - together with his Mig 21, a first view for the West.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 14:44

Rate this:

0 points

The truth is probably closer to this: The huge number of immigrants in Israel gives Mossad access to unlimited identities. Since immigrants must attach a copy of their passport to apply for citizenship, the Mossad can easily pick an identity without the owner's knowledge. The problem is when it goes wrong,as appears to have happened,and the real passport-holders are discovered living in Israel.
Not such a much-vaunted service after all.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 14:50

Rate this:

0 points

It was Gordon Thomas who 'revealed' to the world that Robert Maxwell bought the Mirror Group with money lent to him by Mossad; that he then stole money from the Mirror Grouop pension funds to give to Mossad; and that Mossad finally murdered him because he knew too much.


Avraham Reiss

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 15:05

Rate this:

0 points

Another possible reason - or at least, justification - for the assassination could well be that the name
Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is difficult to pronounce, causes what is termed 'balagan in the mouth' when said aloud. Who knows? ...


Avraham Reiss

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 19:25

Rate this:

0 points

MissMoppett (I would also be ashamed to use my real name with opinions like yours):

It is defeatist opinions like yours that led 6 Million Jews docilely to the gas-chambers. It won't happen again.

No point in telling you that Hamas lobbed some 7,000 shells on Israeli citizens before we invaded Gaza last year - people like you are too 'strong' to be confused by facts.

"They have managed to turn a largely sympathetic world after WW2 into now the most hated and despised country in the world."

That's your personal, fascist opinion, and you had the same hatred for Jews in Germany in 1933, and the same hatred in Spain in 1492.

Israel is neither hated nor despised - it is greatly admired. It's just little blog-spammers like yourself, hiding behind a false name, who try to disseminate otherwise.

So we don't involve you in counter-arguments. We just tell you that Israel is here to stay, and if you had even one iota of human decency, you'd now be in Gaza helping the people you use to besmirch Israel with.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 19:45

Rate this:

0 points

Well, Jonathan, even a scatter gun hits the target once…I always wondered why Cap'n Bob was given an Israeli state funeral


MissMoppett

Wed, 02/17/2010 - 22:09

Rate this:

0 points

Mr Reiss: I'm no fascist. You should get out more, when you may learn certainly in the UK that few people have any respect for Israel. My point in writing was to feebly try and point out that your country's policies are totally counter productive. Treating neighbours and everyone else as barbarians breeds continued terroism. I never said Israel should disappear: just try and treat people as human beings with rights. Use some intelligence: learn from history. Kissinger and Nixon tried to bomb Vietnam, innocent Laos and Cambodia into the Stone Age. Open your eyes, think. Change.


Avraham Reiss

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 12:01

Rate this:

0 points

Snotty little missmoppett, our last history lesson was learned at Auschwitz. People like you have nothing to teach us.

"Treating neighbours and everyone else as barbarians breeds continued terroism"

- like the British in Northern island?

I agree that your writing is feeble, but you have nothing to sell or tell us.


MissMoppett

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 12:12

Rate this:

0 points

Ah Mr Reiss: precisely. You have neatly encapsulated Israel's problem. You've learned nothing and seem unwilling to, which is the sadness.


Yvetta

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 12:18

Rate this:

0 points

Precisement, Avraham.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 13:18

Rate this:

0 points

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001090.html

Tom Gross is a Middle East commentator with excellent sources

"Many governments wanted Mabhouh out of the way, not only Israel. Sources confirm to me that the missiles Mabhouh was procuring from the Iranians had the capability of hitting central Tel Aviv, and were Hamas to use such missiles later this year, the Israeli response might lead to a region-wide conflagration, which many Western and Arab governments want to avoid."


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 14:56

Rate this:

0 points

completely wrong


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 15:45

Rate this:

0 points

still completely wrong


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 15:59

Rate this:

0 points

editing your post so that it jumps forward in time below my observation that it is 'completely wrong' does not make it any more truthful


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 17:11

Rate this:

0 points

Auschwitz. For some, the very use of the dreaded name defines their entire Jewish religious, cultural and historical experience, as if it explains and excuses everything. But should someone else, Heaven Forfend, use similar Holocaust imagery, the EUMC's "working definition" of anti-Semitism is thrown at them. Well, let's get this straight: the "Working Definition" was written by the American Jewish Committee, and published by the European Union Monitoring Centre in 2004, and it made suggestions about what anti-Semitism might include.
But that's as far as it went. It has not been ratified by the EUMC's successor organisation, the Fundamental Rights Agency.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 17:15

Rate this:

0 points

editing your post so that it jumps forward in time below my observation that it is 'completely wrong' does not make it any more truthful


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 17:39

Rate this:

0 points

And citing the EUMC "working definition" as some kind of accepted document on anti-Semitism doesn't make it so, either. It isn't. It was written as a suggestion by the American Jewish Committee and was never ratified by the EUMC or its successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency. It's just a means of stifling debate. Using Nazi imagery regarding Israel is stupid and a grotesque exaggeration -- but it ain't anti-Semitism.


Yvetta

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 17:44

Rate this:

0 points

A tad off topic, but I've always wondered whether Michael Fabricant MP's Early Day Commons motion and formal protest to the BBC Director-General last year re BBC bias over Gaza bore any fruit. Anyone know?


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 17:47

Rate this:

0 points

EUMC Definition is there regardless of the fact that the name of the EUMC was changed to FRA. It makes not a scrap of difference. it was agreed by representatives of all EU members. Each country sends two delegates to the EUMC/FRA, one who works for the government, the other who dioes not. The Definition was widely consilted, it is absolute mendacious nonsense to say it was "written by the AJC' but then absolute mendacious nonsense is what you contribute to this site in spades isn't it.

The EUMC is widely accepted eg by the US State Dept and by the UK Parliamentary Committee on Antisemitism.

Please stop wasting my (and others') time Mr T-Word.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 17:54

Rate this:

0 points

It was never ratified by anyone, Jonathan, not the EUMC and not the FRA. It was a suggestion, no more, no less. It was written by the AJC, irrespective of consultations, and it reflects that organisation's agenda. The State Department and the UK PCA referred to it as a basis, not as the encompassing definition. Anyone for mendacity?


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 18:07

Rate this:

0 points

Further, Jonathan, I have just reread the UK PCA report again and while it refers to the EUMC working definition, its own definition of anti-Semitism makes no reference at all to it (Page 1, Defining Anti-semitism). Second, the State Department's report refers to the WD as defining things which may anti-Semitism.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 18:46

Rate this:

0 points

By the way, you aren't "the Jewish community", so you don't define nuffink. Look at Page one of the report, Jonathan. You'll see exactly how the UK PCA defines anti-Semitism, and it isn't according to the strictures of the now defunct EUMC's WD. Also, you wrote it yourself, the State Department views it as a framework, That's all.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 21:16

Rate this:

0 points

The Police Definition of antisemitism is EVEN WIDER than the EUMC's - It is the MacPherson Definition, as reflected in the Report: "We conclude that it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what does and does not constitute antisemitism."

And the Report recommends the adoption of EUMC: "We recommend that the EUMC Working Definition of antisemitism is adopted and
promoted by the Government and law enforcement agencies."

The Report of Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism (March 2008) of the US State Department used the EUMC Definition for the purpose of its analysis: "The EUMC’s working definition provides a useful framework for identifying and understanding the problem and is adopted for the purposes of this report"

As I said Mr T you are talking through your rear passage and you are a time waster

I am not here to correct your deliberate lies


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 21:20

Rate this:

0 points

Methinks that Jonathan is protesting too much. But try as he might, this does not distract from the fact that for some, the very use of the dreaded name Auschwitz defines their entire Jewish religious, cultural and historical experience, as if it explains and excuses everything. But should someone else, Heaven Forfend, use similar Holocaust imagery, the now-defunct EUMC's "working definition" of anti-Semitism is thrown at them.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 21:49

Rate this:

0 points

I wonder if this conference phone call from Jerusalem really happened:
Danny Ayalon: Jonathan, Tom, all you others are you there?
All: Yes, sir.
DA: Listen, we seem to have screwed up royally on this Dubai jaunt. So we need to come up with some BS that will fool at least some people. Tom, can you put it about that killing Mabsy might have prevented a massive conflagaration?
TG: yes, boss.
DA: Jonathan, can you come up with some other story and point everyone to Tom's blog?
JH: Yes, boss
DA: Oh, and Ron isn't answering the phone to me, so could you try and brief him before he gets our sphericals chewed?
JH: Obviously, boss.
DA: OK, you know your jobs, go do them. I'm now going to think up something so profound to say that even the JC's editor will think I'm clever.
All: Yes, boss


Yvetta

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 22:07

Rate this:

0 points

Time was when anyone who had a letter published in the JC got a letter in the mail from a Christian missionary group almost by return!


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 22:17

Rate this:

0 points

And, Yvetta, you almost certainly got a letter from the NF or BNP (which some of the bloggers here probably support).


Avraham Reiss

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 22:22

Rate this:

0 points

If Lieberman takes my letter seriously, and subsequently sends people to 'talk' to the JC senior staff, do you think it would be OK if - purely as a matter of respect - they used British passports?


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/18/2010 - 22:23

Rate this:

0 points

Oh, lookey. The threat of a Stalinist letter to the Stalinist Molodovan in Jerusalem. With a threat of subsequent violence and identity theft, too. Really smart, that...

MIRIAM SHAVIV ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS